Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edwards Statement on Congressional Passage of Iraq War Funding Bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 02:52 PM
Original message
Edwards Statement on Congressional Passage of Iraq War Funding Bill
Edwards Statement on Congressional Passage of Iraq War Funding Bill
John Edwards for President
Friday, May 25, 2007

----
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement today following Congress' passage of an Iraq war funding bill.

"Washington failed America today when Congress surrendered to the president's demand for another blank check that prolongs the war in Iraq. It is time for this war to end.

"Congress should immediately use its funding power to cap troop levels in Iraq at 100,000, stop the ongoing surge, and force an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in about a year.

"The American people's call for a new course in Iraq was not answered today, but Congress still has the power to end this war. Our security and democracy alike demand it."

http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070514-congressional-passage/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. .
:kick: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. "Washington failed America today"
Indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That's what Keith Olbermann said!
Betrayed by the Dick Cheney Democrats!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. I have a problem with Edwards' criticizing Pelosi when he's the one that voted for the war.
It's real easy for John Edwards to point his finger at folks like Pelosi who voted against the Iraqi War when it truly mattered and when it was the unpopular thing to do. Edwards played it safe and voted to give Bush his war.

Now after 3,000 soldiers are dead and 600,000 Iraqis are dead and the war is unpopular, he wags his finger self-righteously at Nancy Pelosi.

What smug drug of delusion is he taking.

I forgave Edwards for his voting to give Bush this fucking war.

I will not forgive his self-righteous and self-serving political manuvering against Nancy Pelosi.

From this moment on, Edwards in on my shit list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Being correct five years ago does not grant Pelosi and co. permanent immunity from criticism nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Its the equivalent of scolding the janitor for the manner in which he cleans your puke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. So RFK had no credibility on Vietnam because he originally supported it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. You're comparing RFK to Edwards? LOL.
RFK was not a Senator when the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed and he argued with Johnson against ground troops.

Edwards cosponsored the IWR and spoke & wrote passionately for its approval. I was upset that Clinton according to reports did not read the NIE. Then I found out only 6 senators actually did so. So as a member of the intelligence committee and a cosponsor of the IWR, did Edwards read the NIE?

RFK came out for withdraw in Vietnam in 1967 shortly after MLK did. When the war was still popular with a majority of the people, some thing that did not really change until the Tet offensive in 1968.

As recently as fall 2004 when we knew there were no WMDs, Edwards stucks to his guns saying he would vote the same way. He just happened to be running for office.

Edwards looking at a Presidential run summed up his main competition, one Hillary Clinton. He couldn't compete with Hillary in terms of where he previous drew support as a New Democrat. So he had to position himself as the anti-war candidate against Hillary who as a woman would be in a more difficult position on backing down from a defense issue. So in Nov 2005 with public opinion not firmly in the majority against the war, he issues his apology.

He just failed to take in account one Barack Obama storming the scene and robbing him of having the huge anti-war contigent of the party largely to himself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. There are hours of video of Edwards supporting the Iraqi War that perhaps need to be played back.
If he doesn't shut up with his sanctimony, perhaps I will begin posting them here as a reminder as to why 3,000 soldiers are now dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. And that is exactly it, the sanctimony.
Edited on Fri May-25-07 06:54 PM by rinsd
If he wants to apologize and state his support for various bills that will help end the war by all means he should do so. Shit he can even go after my candidate. But going after people who were anti-war from the start?

Look at what Bill Richardson has done. He has two main thursts to his get out of iraq plan, deauthorization of the war and withdraw of the troops. He commended Byrd and Clinton for the deauthorization bill but he hasn't lambasted his fellow Democrats for not legislating the 2nd part for media face time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. the "apologies" in the service of personal
political gain is one of the things that most sicken me about this cat, and effectively give the lie to any sincerity he lays claim to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. 3,000 soldiers are not dead because of her vote, but because of John's they are.
That's the facts. Cold and hard as they may be.

John Edwards is not in any position to suddenly be the anti-war apostle, and least of all to those who stood against the war when it mattered.

Dennis Kucinich, all of those truly brave Democrats who voted against the war --- the one that John Edwards supported --- they have credentials to criticize Pelosi. Credible credentials. John Edwards, on the other hand, only appears opportunistic...and that's pathetic.

Edwards needs to shut up with his hypocritical self-righteousness. Otherwise, I will become vocal in opposition to his candidacy because it will smell. And I am sure I am not alone.

He needs to quit pointing the finger. He's far more culpable then Pelosi ever will be.

It's good to know that he's finally against his war, even if it took him nearly five years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-26-07 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
23. 1,000 more will probably be dead because of IWR-2007. Obama and Hillary supported IWR-2007.
Edited on Sat May-26-07 06:03 AM by w4rma
Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.
Obama and Hillary did not say one word against IWR-2007 until it had been passed and they voted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-28-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Talk about going off the deep end.
What are you smoking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I agree. Edwards has zero credibility on this issue. Does he think we don't know he co-sponsored
the fucking thing? And...the sanctimony! Ughh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Uh....yes, Edwards thinks we don't know.....cause ain't nobody bringing it up
if you've noticed. If the corporate media really didn't want Edwards to take this thing, they'd be all over his ass with his co-sponsorship and the obvious hypocracy that he is now showing by pointing at others (who were braver than he when it truly counted, and showed more leadership in their pinky by standing for what was unpopular but right). So obviously, things are not as they appear, and Edwards is a clear media favorite; always has been....every since his Bildenberg meeting where he "wowed" the biggest Corporate supporters of all!


The Nation: Conspiracy Theorists Unite; A Secret Conference Thought to Rule the World
By ALAN COWELL and DAVID M. HALBFINGER

It was reported that a well-received speech by Senator John Edwards at the Bilderberg conference was one reason for his selection as John Kerry' s running mate.

The conspiracy theories bubbled to the surface anew last week, after it was reported that a well-received speech by Senator John Edwards at the conference last month in Stresa, Italy, was one reason for his selection as John Kerry's vice-presidential running mate.

Is the Bilderberg confab now molding domestic American policy?

Roughly 130 delegates attend the invitation-only annual gatherings, named for the Dutch hotel where the first Bilderberg conference was held in May 1954, to debate issues surrounding the cold war.

The meetings are hardly a monument to transparency. The hotels involved are usually closed off to other guests.

Unlike the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, journalists are not invited to cover it -- although a few attend as participants -- and all delegates promise to keep quiet about what they hear and say.

''They do not have to sign anything, but they understand that they do not talk,'' said Maja Banck-Polderman, the organization's executive secretary. In a telephone interview, she said she was the only employee at the Bilderberg administrative office in Leiden, the Netherlands.

Secrecy understandings aside, prying details loose about Mr. Edwards's appearance was not difficult so long as the chattering chieftains were not identified.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E3DA103BF932A25754C0A9629C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fV%2fVice%20Presidents%20and%20Vice%20Presidency%20%28US%29




Bilderberg 'performance'
key to Edwards VP pick


July 8, 2004

Sen. John Edwards' standout "performance" at the super-secret Bilderberg meeting in Italy last month may have been a key reason for his selection as John Kerry's vice presidential running mate, according to the New York Times.

The 50th anniversary conference of the elite group – which many believe conspires semi-annually to foster global government – met June 3 through June 6 in Stresa, Italy, at the Grand Hotel des Iles Borromees.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39333



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I appreciate your reminding folks around here about this, FrenchieCat
Edwards can criticize this illegal and wicked war all he wants now and I'll cheer him on now that he's finally converted.

But Edwards can not criticize people like Pelosi who took a lot of shit for opposing the then-popular war as he voted with both hands for it.

You wrote "cause ain't nobody bringing it up" and that's the problem. I'm here to let his supporters know that he's shitting a little to close to his own house and dragging it all back into his living room.

This is not is most shining moment. He seems opportunistic and way too ambitious to me now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. Hmmmm.
I knew he was at Bilderberg, but I never read about the possiblity that his performance there led to his selection as VP. Very interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. jefferson_dem, thanks for your clarity here. Edwards needs to stop wagging his finger
when the blood is all over his hands.

I had forgiven John Edwards when he finally came clean and apologized about his vote to Tim Russert, in spite of the fact that the apology was nearly five years late and when the war was no longer popular, in spite of the fact that he had a new view of the War in Iraq only after he's no longer in the Senate where he has to vote (and where he really failed when it mattered), and yes, I'd forgiven him for his conversion coming only when he entered the presidential race.

But his finger wagging at Pelosi and those who opposed the war is just way too much.

He has zero credibility and truly looks like a crass opportunistic creep now.

If he continues with this, he will have my vocal criticism from now on.

I know I am not alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Beginning to look like a used car salesman to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Yeah, all he needs now is a really loud and cheap suit.
Edwards has really sunk in my eyes. I don't know if I can ever see him in another light again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Edwards is about strategy.......election strategy,
Edited on Fri May-25-07 07:04 PM by FrenchieCat
and once he decides on his approach, he goes all out....which explain why there was more cheerleadering than required back in 2002, and there is now intense Marching as the Antiwar Candidate in 2007. But those who are fooled into thinking that it is all about Edwards being converted are in for a rude awakening. No one can make a 180 on just about every stance there is ideologically just like that! It's not simply about a conversion on Iraq, its a conversion on courting the left vs. previously courting the moderates and conservative dems. One didn't work, so he has switched to another, although he never stopped running. I find it pretty transparently unbelievable!

Edwards'"election" strategery.....

Circa 2002- didn't work
Edwards gets in tune with rural voters.
(Knight Ridder Newspapers)
Date: September 11, 2002 | Author: Hurt, Charles
Edwards had hired the band to perform at a Washington fund-raiser for Ben Jones, who is running for Congress in Virginia. That's the same Ben Jones who played Cooter, the country mechanic in the 1980s good ol' boy TV hit "The Dukes of Hazzard."

The event was sponsored by Edwards' political action committee, New American Optimists, and is part of a key strategy Edwards is rolling out in his 2004 campaign for president

Aiming to buck a 20-year trend, Edwards _ a Democrat _ is courting the conservative rural voters who are some of the Republican Party's most reliable. The effort could make some traditional Democrats a bit squeamish, however, because it embraces gun ownership rights and trumpets cultural passions such as NASCAR that might be viewed by some as unsophisticated.

Regardless of whether it succeeds, the strategy is already being closely watched by top Democrats nationwide.

"He may love bluegrass and he may love NASCAR, but he's going to have to prove it. It's simply deceitful to try to present yourself in a way that doesn't match up with who you are."
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-91380449.html


Circa 2007-
Standing up to corporate America in an era of booming profits, however, may be a well-timed strategy for Edwards in the Democratic primary. Much as he did as a trial lawyer making tens of millions representing the injured against corporate abuse, the shrewd Edwards has figured out how to do well by siding with the little guy. While labor's membership has declined, its determination to wield its political clout has mushroomed over the past decade. In the two most recent elections, union money ranked at the top of independent expenditures, and union leaders tell Fortune they plan to exceed their record-breaking 2004 spending in the current election.

With that as the spark plug, Edwards hopes his other assets - the appeal of his anti-war stance, a formidable campaign organization, and his experience as a presidential candidate - will enable him to surprise all those pundits betting on a two-way race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100008849/index.htm


Edwards' Poverty Center strategy comes under question:


MAY 28, 2007
Up Front
Edited by Deborah Stead
John Edwards' Convenient Nonprofit

During periods when they're out of office, many politicians arrange jobs for loyal former aides. After his unsuccessful 2004 Vice-Presidential bid, John Edwards came up with a creative approach: He started a nonprofit dedicated to fighting poverty. Rather than recruiting outside poverty experts, the Center for Promise & Opportunity became a perch for several once and future Edwards staff members.

The line between an ordinary nonprofit and a group formed to test the political waters can be blurry. But legally there's a big difference. Ordinary nonprofits aren't subject to rules on disclosing donors and limiting contributions; exploratory political groups are. No one has challenged the status of the Edwards center, and experts in the field say it may technically pass muster as an ordinary nonprofit. But at a minimum, it appears to have helped Edwards prepare for the 2008 Presidential race.

Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, launched the center in 2005 at the Washington (D.C.) address of his PAC. The nonprofit raised $1.3 million in 2005, the only year for which data are available, and spent some of it on a national speaking tour for Edwards. It also spent $259,000 on consultants. The campaign declines to disclose the donors or consultants. The center is now defunct, and some of its key leaders are now aiding the Edwards campaign.

Edwards' team defends the center. "Obviously, some of the people who had worked for Senator Edwards in government and on his campaign continued to work with him in this effort," says spokesman Eric Schultz. "John Edwards and everyone involved is proud of the organization's work."
By Eamon Javers
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_22/c4036012.htm?chan=search


Don't even get me started on his Iran saber rattling to Aipac that died a quiet death right here on the netroots after folks started deserting Edwards '08 in drove. The media never mentioned the divergence in his approach from an Iran Hawk to a "Like Wes" Iran diplomat in a matter of days, with the only thing that occured in between was netroot disapproving outrage. It was something to behold!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-28-07 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. He SPONSORED the IWR, along with Joementum! Now he's on a high horse...
I never forgave him for giving W his war. And standing by this action up to, oh, November 2005.
But bluster and rhetoric sell well to the unthinking. So he does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-28-07 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
27. I am so glad you have seen the light, David!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
17. Irresponsible. What is his PLAN for "immediately withdrawing 40-50,000?"
Edited on Fri May-25-07 06:57 PM by calteacherguy
How did he come up with number? Seems to me like he's pulling rabbits out of a hat. In any case, it's irrelevant because anything like that would be vetoed. This kinds of "proposals" from Edwards are not real strategies or solutions. Nobody takes them seriously.

Bottom line: the Bush administration is determined to leave dealing with Iraq to the next President. Whoever we elect as the next President will have to deal with a very complex situation, the dynamics of which are unknowable at this time. Edwards is not qualified to manage it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-25-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. If elected he will do that and then withdraw all the troops
Edited on Fri May-25-07 10:18 PM by draft_mario_cuomo
Bush will be irrelevant on 1/20/2009. If Edwards is elected he has told us what he would do. Candidates for president should state what they intend to do as president (and not just on one issue). We should compare the various plans among our candidates to end the war or de-escalate the war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-28-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. And we should trust him, cuz based on his senate record he's running against...
Or maybe because he's been threatening Iran lately?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC